The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided not to seek Supreme Court review of two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions invalidating the NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule, which would have required most private sector employers to post a notice of employee rights in the workplace.

The NLRB remains committed to ensuring that workers, businesses and labor organizations are informed of their rights and obligations under the National Labor Relations Act. Therefore, the NLRB will continue its national outreach program to educate the American public about the statute.

I'm not going to lie: I'm disappointed that the NLRB didn't bring this to the Supreme Court. I understand that they thought their chances of winning is slim. However, I do think there was value in challenging the D.C. Circuit's incredibly broad rule. Of course, that's easy for me to say . . . .

TrackBack URL for this entry:$MTTrans>

Comments

I would not be shocked that the SG feared that SCOTUS would address a much larger issue not presented, and lay the groundwork for getting rid of all types of notices. See Citizen's United where the court went after far greater matters than were brought to the Court.

Additionally, the Court continually shows a dislike for employee rights, or at a minimum, an understanding.

While on my pedestal I'll pose this: would conservatives be in arms if unions and employers came up with agreements that all challenges to the union by individuals must be brought through arbitration, and class actions will not be permitted? DR Horton goes against the NLRA, so why not my idea?

Yes, let me voluntarily go to the website of an agency so weak that it is unwilling to even fully press the case that employers ought to be required to tell employees that they have rights under the law not to be discriminated against, rights the agency purportedly "enforces," because, like, they might really be able to do something for me. Ahhhh . . . No. Serendipitously I had just finished Jeff Faux's "Servant Economy" when I saw this post.

Posted by: Michael Duff | Jan 7, 2014 6:43:36 AM

Michael, my guess is that the SG made the final call.

Posted by: Per Son | Jan 8, 2014 8:19:22 AM

Of course, like the notice posting itself, the press release is singularly disingenuous, and could use the following edits: "which would have required most private sector employers to post a notice of [some] employee rights in the workplace.

The NLRB remains committed to ensuring that workers, businesses and labor organizations are informed of [some of ]their rights and obligations under the National Labor Relations Act."

And to answer your question, Jared --- rejecting your equation of "employee rights" with "union powers," admittedly another discussion --- since when is one party unilaterally allowed to deny an adverse party access to an Article III court? The Federal Arbitration Act does not allow it, and the Court already rejected an effort to do so in ALPA v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (1998).

Much though unions would love to make it so, Jared, are you seriously suggesting that the Court would validate a union's self-interested waiver of an employee's statutory/constitutional rights, based upon cases where individuals had waived THEIR OWN rights? Aside from comparing apples and oranges, keep dreaming.

Posted by: James Young | Jan 13, 2014 5:01:08 PM

James, James, James. I was being sarcastic in the first place. Reread my post.